Individual Rights

For the first time in decades, women again find themselves having to defend their individual and most personal rights. Women's issues laid to rest years ago have re-emerged as the Republican Party has moved further to the right in a frivolous attempt to fight our battles of the past. The fact that these attempts to roll back women's rights that we fought so long and hard for have resurfaced, and Mitt Romney – at the helm of the Republican Party...

It seems like only a couple of years ago that we were worrying about the distractions of talking on the phone while driving. Since that time, technology - being ever on the march - has afforded us new ways to kill each other. Like so many sensible people, State Sen. Maria Sachs sounds as though she can't imagine why both parties in the Legislature wouldn't embrace her proposed bill to outlaw texting while driving. She asserts (in a comment that sounds more like wishful thinking)

Do we still have individual rights in the United States? The Patriot Act has been used to take away individual rights that have been part of the United States for 200 years. Where does this end? When will we get back our rights? The United States tries to be the world's policemen to spread democracy throughout the world, yet it seems that U.S. citizens have fewer rights than some foreign countries that the United States is trying to protect. When will this end? And when will we get our freedoms back?

For the first time in decades, women again find themselves having to defend their individual and most personal rights. Women's issues laid to rest years ago have re-emerged as the Republican Party has moved further to the right in a frivolous attempt to fight our battles of the past. The fact that these attempts to roll back women's rights that we fought so long and hard for have resurfaced, and Mitt Romney  at the helm of the Republican Party  has failed to elicit an ardent rebuke is disgraceful.

What does Memorial Day mean? It is a day we honor our military, our boys and girls. They are our protectors. We, for our part, are supposed to keep in trust our liberty and individual rights that others shed blood to pass on to us. We have failed them! Our leaders have failed us! Our kids deserve better. Our veterans deserve better. This November we can show our leaders who really rules this country. Throw these bums out, and send a clear message around the world. The American people believe in our Constitution, and individual rights, that Americans are ready to lead again.

I would like to call attention to the article, "Fired worker awarded $198,000," published in the Business section on March 3. The verdict in this case was an atrocity because of the premise it was based upon, and consequently reinforced. This premise is, that workers have a right to their jobs _ but employers do not have a right to run their company. In short, it exclaims that the will of the proletariat is to subordinate any individual property rights when it sees fit. I am concerned for the fate of this once great nation, America; the only nation in the history of the world founded on the principle of protecting individual rights.

Our president has just said a democracy must consist of checks and balances, but our judges are being attacked by Congress and religious leaders. Individual rights are declining because of government interference with people's rights, as in the right-to-die issues and a child's decision to have an abortion. When people suggest retribution on judges when they do not like their decisions, it will be like the Wild West. We need compassion and democracy to continue our wonderful heritage.

It is interesting to note the difference in approach of editorial page editor Kingsley Guy and of columnist Mike Royko to the penalty imposed by Singapore on Michael Fay. Guy's comments, the product of careful thought, supports the right of the Singapore government to impose its own brand of punishment on criminals "without guidance from the American president."He calls attention to the difference in concept of crime and punishment between the Asian and the Western cultures, developed by our valuing individual rights above public rights and the Asians' placing public rights above individual rights.

To require seat belt usage by adults is a breach of individual rights and responsibilities. An adult who does not wear a seat belt is not endangering others. If there is to be any legislation regarding the wearing of these important safety devices, it should be to deny any legal and medical claims to those who do not wear them. Requiring the use of seat belts by minors is another question, since by definition such individuals are not capable of protecting themselves. Our family uses seat belts all the time, so it is not that we are against their use, but this should be, for adults, a discretionary matter.

In regard to comments on your editorial pages, affirmative action is wrong because (1) the person receiving the benefit is not the person who was ever discriminated against; (2) it is based on the strange theory of group rights as opposed to individual rights; (3) equal quotes are not compatible with equal opportunity; (4) there is a contempt for the hypocrisy of pretending that injustice is justice; (5) increasing discrimination against some to reduce it against others is reverse discrimination.

West not into name-calling In a Sun Sentinel article describing Rep. Allen West's assessment of GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, West declined to call the often inconsistent Romney a "flip-flopper," claiming, "I'm not into name-calling, all that kind of stuff. " Really? Rep. West has called President Barack Obama a "Marxist," Vice-President Joe Biden "nutty" and "mindless," and in a now infamous email last July, referred to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz as "vile, unprofessional, and despicable.

The Supreme Court recently agreed to review the Obamacare law and, with that, set the stage for what promises to be the most closely watched constitutional showdown in decades. The question is whether the individual mandate, which requires individuals to purchase health insurance, is constitutional. The answer very much depends on the constitutional tension between the federal power to regulate commerce and individual rights. Oddly, while most courts and commentators accept that individual rights are part of the equation, few have analyzed those rights.

The Supreme Court recently agreed to review the Obamacare law and, with that, set the stage for what promises to be the most closely watched constitutional showdown in decades. The question is whether the individual mandate, which requires individuals to purchase health insurance, is constitutional. The answer very much depends on the constitutional tension between the federal power to regulate commerce and individual rights. Oddly, while most courts and commentators accept that individual rights are part of the equation, few have analyzed those rights.

Liberal certitudes continue to dissolve, the most recent solvent being a robust new defense of a 1905 Supreme Court decision that liberals have long reviled -- and misrepresented. To understand why the court correctly decided Lochner v. New York and why this is relevant to current arguments, read David E. Bernstein's "Rehabilitating Lochner: Defending Individual Rights against Progressive Reform. " Since the New Deal, courts have stopped defending liberty of contract and other unenumerated rights grounded in America's natural rights tradition.

Finally, the national conversation about democracy is relatively mature and serious. Save for some TV news anchors, just about everyone seems to understand that democracy is a tricky thing. That skepticism was hard-earned. The past decade provided painful lessons for everyone, on both sides of the ideological aisle. Liberals, who were once naively optimistic about democracy promotion, turned dour when President George W. Bush became naively optimistic about it. And then supporters of Bush's freedom agenda learned a tough lesson from, among other things, the disastrous-but-democratic elections that put a terrorist junta in charge of the Gaza Strip.

Federal District Judge Roger K. Vinson's decision that ObamaCare is unconstitutional has vindicated former Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, who contended as much when he filed the lawsuit that has been joined by 25 other states. Left-wing ideologues attempted to demonize McCollum when he took ObamaCare to court, claiming he was embarking on a politically-motivated publicity stunt designed to promote his campaign for Florida governor. This attempt at character assassination says more about the left than McCollum.

In a Sept. 17 letter, "Having faith eases few of life's bumps," the writer stated that he's amazed by the uproar over the mention of God. What gets me upset is the concerted and dangerous effort of the Christian right to force its views on all of America. When this country was formed, it was based on individual rights and freedoms. Forcing someone whose beliefs are different to say the Pledge of Allegiance using the words "one nation, under God," takes that person's freedom away. If the letter writer's faith gives him comfort, great, but he should not try to force his views on the rest of us.

Federal District Judge Roger K. Vinson's decision that Obamacare is unconstitutional has vindicated former Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, who contended as much when he filed the lawsuit that has been joined by 25 other states. Left-wing ideologues attempted to demonize McCollum when he took Obamacare to court, claiming he was embarking on a politically motivated publicity stunt designed to promote his campaign for Florida governor. This attempt at character assassination says more about the left than McCollum.